![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 17, 2005, December 17, 2006, December 17, 2007, December 17, 2008, December 17, 2009, December 17, 2011, December 17, 2016, and December 17, 2018. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of General Order No. 11 (1862) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Kentucky may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I suggest that Lincoln's order revoking Grant's should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. I wish that one could say Grant's order was an extraordinary aberration, which alas it clearly was not. Still, it does seem important to note that it was firmly renounced by the president. I am tentatively editing the article to reflect this; hope it is satisfactory to all. Wwheaton ( talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what exactly the hell that meant, or what that comment had to do with this article. I looked up "JohnC" and discovered that three years later he was "blocked indefinitely" from editing articles on Wikipedia. I can guess why. Profhum ( talk) 01:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest the two General Order No. 11's be split up into two separate articles as they seem to not have any relevance to each other outside of taking place in the Civil War. It took me a second reading to understand this, and others may be easily confused. Thoughts? Comments? - Hinotori 11:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The two different orders are presented in their original text but in slightly different format. Regardless of whether or not the article is split in two (see other suggestion), I think consistency would be good. Which format is better or more used? - Hinotori 11:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Some of the text in this article is the exact text from one source. Should this be rephrased or quoted...? -- Hazelorb
I had absolutely no idea about this brief chapter in American history --its this "repository of human history" effect that so many like me find appealing about this site. Good work, all.-- A Good Anon 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Prompt revocation on orders of the president doesn't nuillity the views behind the original order. Nor does Grant's rather feeble later attempts to distance himself from his own actions. Incidentally the army isn't the government. JohnC ( talk) 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The Jewish-American physicist A. Michelson owed his appointment to the naval academy directly to president Grant.-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Is "non-antisemitism" a word?
Hitler supposedly had 150,000 jewish soldiers. Is that evidence of his "non-antisemitism"? JohnC ( talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is actual documentation of Grant's antisemitism, comparing U. Grant to A. Hitler has no place in this discussion. With A. Hitler, there is plenty of documentation of his antisemitic attitudes. Furthermore, "supposedly" does not count as "fact". Please cite source of your assertions, or amend statement accordingly. -- dswynne ( talk) 00:57. 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hitler did not have 150,000 Jewish soldiers in his army. The title of a well-known book on that topic is highly misleading. There were very, very, very few professing Jews in the German army in World War II. In fact, there might have been none at all. There were several thousand German soldiers with "close" Jewish ancestors (a grandparent or great-grandparent). To refer to these individuals as "Jewish" when they neither practiced the Jewish religion nor associated culturally with the Jewish people is incorrect. Most of them went to great pains to disassociate themselves from their families' Jewish past. As for Grant, it was entirely possible that he liked individual Jews but also believed various anti-Semitic generalizations. Poldy Bloom ( talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently reads, "The Democrats condemned the order as part of what they saw as the US Government's systematic violation of civil liberties and introduced a motion of censure against Grant in the Senate, attracting thirty votes in favour against seven opposed." But in Arthur Hertzberg's book The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter, he writes, "Most unfortunately, a resolution to revoke the order had meanwhile been introduced in Congress, and it lost in both Houses." So which is it? Did the resolution pass in the Senate by 30 to 7, or did it fail? Or are these two different resolutions -- one to censure Grant and one to revoke the order? Poldy Bloom ( talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Korn's book is certainly an important source regarding the Order, but it seems that it has been used somewhat selectively. For example, while the article mentions that the Order was not the first such decree to flow from Grant's pen, the article does not mention Grant's rather brusque revocation of a similar order written by another officer, thus making the idea of a clear pattern harder to sustain. Most importantly, perhaps, Korn himself seems to suggest that though the Order was issued by Grant, it did not necessarily originate with him, with (if my memory isn't failing) Korn mentioning specifically the odd wording of Halleck's "rebuke" in the aftermath of the order. Also mentioned is that the word "Jew" was often crassly used by Grant and many others as sort of a shorthand for cotton speculators. None of this excuses Grant, for the Order went out in his name and in his hand, but I do think a little greater context could be provided.-- 172.190.85.99 ( talk) 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph says it "was revoked before any such action was taken", but earlier in the article is specifically lists 3 towns where people were expelled. So obviously the "any" is not accurate. I'll correct it. T-bonham ( talk) 07:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that this detail in the last paragraph be checked for accuracy. I remember visiting the Touro synagogue in Providence at one point, and a guide there claimed that George Washington, among others, had visited the synagogue.
I have been making improvements to the articles and added Grant biography sources. The goal is to make the article neutral and accurate as possible. I also added a source by Miller (2019) who authored a book on the Vicksburg campaign. Opinions on article improvements are welcome. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Do historians have the right to say Grant's order was racism ? Do historians have the right to judge Grant or any general fighting a war ? FDR's EO9066 that imprisoned over 100,000 Japanese was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. In the article there is an anti-Semitsm tag. As terrible as Grant's GO11 was, is Grant being judged a war criminal in this article ? Cmguy777 ( talk) 07:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible Grant's order could have been initiated by pressing public necessity rather than just racism or anti-Semitism ? Korematsu vs. United States established this standard of "pressing public necessity". Calhoun (2017) pages 46-47 calls GO11 Grant's "ill-advised" order. Grant in his letter of defense in 1868 says "which violation innured [sic] greatly to the help of the rebels....I have no prejudice against sect or race but want each individual to be judged by his own merit....I do not sustain the order." Was Grant lying in his order ? I realize no historian uses the term pressing public necessity, it is a legal term. Not trying to cause trouble. Is the article neutral ? I am not proposing to use the term "pressing public necessity" in the article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I tried to add an Infobox: event, but had to be discussed for approval. Not sure why ? Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 17, 2005, December 17, 2006, December 17, 2007, December 17, 2008, December 17, 2009, December 17, 2011, December 17, 2016, and December 17, 2018. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of General Order No. 11 (1862) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Kentucky may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I suggest that Lincoln's order revoking Grant's should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. I wish that one could say Grant's order was an extraordinary aberration, which alas it clearly was not. Still, it does seem important to note that it was firmly renounced by the president. I am tentatively editing the article to reflect this; hope it is satisfactory to all. Wwheaton ( talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what exactly the hell that meant, or what that comment had to do with this article. I looked up "JohnC" and discovered that three years later he was "blocked indefinitely" from editing articles on Wikipedia. I can guess why. Profhum ( talk) 01:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest the two General Order No. 11's be split up into two separate articles as they seem to not have any relevance to each other outside of taking place in the Civil War. It took me a second reading to understand this, and others may be easily confused. Thoughts? Comments? - Hinotori 11:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The two different orders are presented in their original text but in slightly different format. Regardless of whether or not the article is split in two (see other suggestion), I think consistency would be good. Which format is better or more used? - Hinotori 11:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Some of the text in this article is the exact text from one source. Should this be rephrased or quoted...? -- Hazelorb
I had absolutely no idea about this brief chapter in American history --its this "repository of human history" effect that so many like me find appealing about this site. Good work, all.-- A Good Anon 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Prompt revocation on orders of the president doesn't nuillity the views behind the original order. Nor does Grant's rather feeble later attempts to distance himself from his own actions. Incidentally the army isn't the government. JohnC ( talk) 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The Jewish-American physicist A. Michelson owed his appointment to the naval academy directly to president Grant.-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Is "non-antisemitism" a word?
Hitler supposedly had 150,000 jewish soldiers. Is that evidence of his "non-antisemitism"? JohnC ( talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is actual documentation of Grant's antisemitism, comparing U. Grant to A. Hitler has no place in this discussion. With A. Hitler, there is plenty of documentation of his antisemitic attitudes. Furthermore, "supposedly" does not count as "fact". Please cite source of your assertions, or amend statement accordingly. -- dswynne ( talk) 00:57. 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hitler did not have 150,000 Jewish soldiers in his army. The title of a well-known book on that topic is highly misleading. There were very, very, very few professing Jews in the German army in World War II. In fact, there might have been none at all. There were several thousand German soldiers with "close" Jewish ancestors (a grandparent or great-grandparent). To refer to these individuals as "Jewish" when they neither practiced the Jewish religion nor associated culturally with the Jewish people is incorrect. Most of them went to great pains to disassociate themselves from their families' Jewish past. As for Grant, it was entirely possible that he liked individual Jews but also believed various anti-Semitic generalizations. Poldy Bloom ( talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently reads, "The Democrats condemned the order as part of what they saw as the US Government's systematic violation of civil liberties and introduced a motion of censure against Grant in the Senate, attracting thirty votes in favour against seven opposed." But in Arthur Hertzberg's book The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter, he writes, "Most unfortunately, a resolution to revoke the order had meanwhile been introduced in Congress, and it lost in both Houses." So which is it? Did the resolution pass in the Senate by 30 to 7, or did it fail? Or are these two different resolutions -- one to censure Grant and one to revoke the order? Poldy Bloom ( talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Korn's book is certainly an important source regarding the Order, but it seems that it has been used somewhat selectively. For example, while the article mentions that the Order was not the first such decree to flow from Grant's pen, the article does not mention Grant's rather brusque revocation of a similar order written by another officer, thus making the idea of a clear pattern harder to sustain. Most importantly, perhaps, Korn himself seems to suggest that though the Order was issued by Grant, it did not necessarily originate with him, with (if my memory isn't failing) Korn mentioning specifically the odd wording of Halleck's "rebuke" in the aftermath of the order. Also mentioned is that the word "Jew" was often crassly used by Grant and many others as sort of a shorthand for cotton speculators. None of this excuses Grant, for the Order went out in his name and in his hand, but I do think a little greater context could be provided.-- 172.190.85.99 ( talk) 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph says it "was revoked before any such action was taken", but earlier in the article is specifically lists 3 towns where people were expelled. So obviously the "any" is not accurate. I'll correct it. T-bonham ( talk) 07:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that this detail in the last paragraph be checked for accuracy. I remember visiting the Touro synagogue in Providence at one point, and a guide there claimed that George Washington, among others, had visited the synagogue.
I have been making improvements to the articles and added Grant biography sources. The goal is to make the article neutral and accurate as possible. I also added a source by Miller (2019) who authored a book on the Vicksburg campaign. Opinions on article improvements are welcome. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Do historians have the right to say Grant's order was racism ? Do historians have the right to judge Grant or any general fighting a war ? FDR's EO9066 that imprisoned over 100,000 Japanese was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. In the article there is an anti-Semitsm tag. As terrible as Grant's GO11 was, is Grant being judged a war criminal in this article ? Cmguy777 ( talk) 07:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible Grant's order could have been initiated by pressing public necessity rather than just racism or anti-Semitism ? Korematsu vs. United States established this standard of "pressing public necessity". Calhoun (2017) pages 46-47 calls GO11 Grant's "ill-advised" order. Grant in his letter of defense in 1868 says "which violation innured [sic] greatly to the help of the rebels....I have no prejudice against sect or race but want each individual to be judged by his own merit....I do not sustain the order." Was Grant lying in his order ? I realize no historian uses the term pressing public necessity, it is a legal term. Not trying to cause trouble. Is the article neutral ? I am not proposing to use the term "pressing public necessity" in the article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I tried to add an Infobox: event, but had to be discussed for approval. Not sure why ? Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)